CommandLine Icon concept

The place to bring up any design issues, or post your own creations

Moderator: Moderator Team

Aape
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:29 am

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by Aape » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:31 pm

I didn't say conforming to guidelines was a bad thing. After all, it's important for an icon set to have a consistent look. However, unless the developers absolutely cannot be convinced to use anything other than Tango, then we aren't going to be using the Tango guidelines for much longer... So don't immediately dismiss an icon because it doesn't look like Tango.


Blackcrack
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:55 pm
Contact:

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by Blackcrack » Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:08 pm

Hy,

http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/I ... Conditions

it's like my "realicons" on kde-look.org who made by me...
to be at clost on the real stuff be to know what's it is be..

EDIT: msn-XP-icons.. Reactos it is reactos and not xp,
there tell the users what they are like or whant and
not realy the guidelines of MS.... we whant icons who be good for using every day,
ligthwave design mit modern and elegant. Vista have other guidelines too,
why do you not linking them one and Windows7 have other way too so i think,
every moderns icons, wo we must ervery intercept behint of Microsft to have them
guidelines and be very hehint of it and that' s the problem to be conform of it to same time...
so, and therefor we need a own easy, modern, for every use Icons who be between modern
it is and actual as be possible .. so.. and this isnt possible if you are always chasing behind ,
because then you lose in the past. And be honor, XP it is rater old and...
it is from 2001 and we whant a modern style of iconset.. and therefor we must be still
develope us own, reactos iconset, with modern and realistic style who be still usable for every day use..
In the office, at home and elsewhere..

best regards
Blacky

johnwedd
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:00 am

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by johnwedd » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:41 am

ok, a few major themes i want to address about this small, (and slapped together i must admit), icon.

SVG vs BMP/PNG:
A) win32 has always used bitmap for icons, dunno exactly why, but they do.
B)SVG is not the same as raster style art, i.e. its harder. a lot harder. Now i can appreciate the use of vector paths, i still use them in my work as a tool. But vector based images are unforgiving and ultimately not worth the trouble.
C)Raster image editing gives me more control over how the pixels render in what ever size, dpi, and color range is necessary. giving more freedom to work different techniques and effects while maintaining good control over what you actually see.
bottom-line: raster gives me better results and compatibility in return for the effort i put in.

Tango guidelines:
Tango is not ROS, and at last check, ROS isn't technically ready for different themes and icons. While I agree we need certain guidelines, taking tango's will restrict the creativity and stifle variety in the design and development of alternative themes and icons. It is my humble opinion that building up a set of guidelines specifically for ROS themes/icons, to act as suggestion would be the best. It would give the actual developers of the ROS shell more control, while letting artists like me give feed back along common lines, with out painting the hard working programmers into a corner.

and its a slapped together concept! for the love of google, its not scripture!

Aape
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:29 am

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by Aape » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:02 am

Besides, Tango is the equivalent to the stereotype of "Open Source has no artistic taste" to Carlos Mencia's stand-up :/

swight
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:31 pm

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by swight » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:11 am

Personally I only mentioned Tango because I saw it being mentioned as a guideline to follow on other posts about icons. To me it seemed possible that the icon in this topic could have been following the guidelines already . weather or not we should strictly follow the guidelines in Tango I do not know. Maybe there is some type of optimization I don't know about or maybe we aren't ready yet to handle a large color range. I haven't looked at the source code so I have no clue. One thing that may be good is collecting icon sets that go together regardless of the guidelines, as if they go together the purpose of the guidelines(if it is to make icons go together) is already served and thus may not be required. So the question is what is the true purpose of Tango to this project?

SdC
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: GMT +1

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by SdC » Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:16 pm

Aape wrote:Besides, Tango is the equivalent to the stereotype of "Open Source has no artistic taste" to Carlos Mencia's stand-up :/
Ridiculous. Has nothing to do with taste. It's about competency. Just take a good look at some of the amateur submissions in this forum over the past year. You can NOT deny that Tango delivers on functionality, which is imho kinda.... important. I have great respect for (good) professional designers. They deserve to get paid, and are not under obligation to work for open source. Open source+artistic+DRM=apple=$$$$$$$.
*disclaimer: this is a generalization on my part, there are some beautiful designs around in open source but those are the exceptions.

Aape
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:29 am

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by Aape » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:50 pm

Wait, since when do we need to load our system with DRM if we want tasteful design? <.<

SdC
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: GMT +1

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by SdC » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:56 pm

Aape wrote:Wait, since when do we need to load our system with DRM if we want tasteful design? <.<
the mention of drm is incidental; it's one of the pillars of apple's strategy but not otherwise related to the artistic aspect under discussion here.

johnwedd
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:00 am

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by johnwedd » Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:02 am

why is this even an issue?
Its a moot point.
that icon i made is defaulted to CC license (see Deviant art policy), which from an artistic stand-point, is pretty open source.
how it looks now, whether or not its tango compliant and what ever stigma associated with OS artistic taste is freaking moot.
I made a pretty icon, thought that ROS could use a library of art specifically associated with it to at least look good.
if you like it fine, if not, equally fine. I meant it as a concept to begin with, i was literally just putting around in Photoshop and this popped out as a result. Thought you might like it. THAT IS ALL!

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by Elledan » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:41 am

It's a pretty icon and very suitable for ReactOS. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. I'm always right.

:D

(actually I wouldn't mind 'stealing' icons like this for the OS I'm working on :wink: )

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by vicmarcal » Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:00 pm

Which OS? :D
Image

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by Haos » Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:17 pm

@johnwedd

Forum is really not the best place for any real ROS-related work, as you had just learnt. You should rather use irc and consult ROS Team.

johnwedd
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:00 am

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by johnwedd » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:29 am

kinda why i posted it here, its a non issue really. i consider it closed.

Blackcrack
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:55 pm
Contact:

Re: CommandLine Icon concept

Post by Blackcrack » Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:32 pm

johnwedd wrote:kinda why i posted it here, its a non issue really. i consider it closed.
*rofl*

woh,... kinda, i had think.. this is an Design-Forum *rofl* hummm... now i am realy think about it :\
And for what's so an Forum.. ? i had think, to speak and let show some ideas/grafic's (in Design one)
Imho, some stream of grafic's have nothing to do with the forum (you dont mus look inside) 1.st,
the 2nd it is, it is this forum only existend to speak some thing's deadly ?
Pease, jea for what it is exist easy them design-forum if any every "here share of food" about some
postings and grafics.. grate !

i think, these grafic's shold be closed Team and some of Grafics/Design-Theam
as a 3'rd level board who can easy only login and show the Graficsboard who
be realy in the Design-team... there for can the Team consult/take me too..

it shold give 2nd Board (like the old beated time..), one who be outside, like here and one of
a grafic-team who be hidden of ....humm... of the eyes.. in my eye's be need this way.. of the best one..

in fact it is give an CIA.vc and why dont shold give a Grafic's-ROS-developing Team-Board for it..
Only for Designer who have fun to posing some grafics and other things for Design of Reactos.. Reactos go end of Alfa and come to beta.. and if you whant it make the best, give a plase for balanceing between programming and design Fireball and Frik85.. please ... it is need it .. imho.... programming it's your's grafic's be the Grafic's Designer, and, since surely, the Designer also want to reactos at the top have. There for, please, get they Designer a owned Board to can funny developing the design... a closed one who can alone the designer & PR tell who can on it..

best regards
Blacky

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests